nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Constitution
Languages I do not see anything about official languages, if I am right? --Bucurestean 18:50, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :Article 11. 18:52, November 26, 2009 (UTC) ::Lol, last point of the whole constitution... but if it is correct, the Oceana language cannot be an official language of Hurbanova which is unconstitutional. --Bucurestean 18:54, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :::Daar ga je wat snel door de bocht I'm not sure that's right. It's wiki policy that everything is in English, and all legal documents should be in English as well. But perhaps, allowing Oceana is an official/administrative language is okay too. It's not in the law that it is illegal è. 18:56, November 26, 2009 (UTC) ::::And Dutch in Train Village? Both languages aren't used at all. --Bucurestean 18:57, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :::::I know. If we get a Congress elected, we'll take a look at it :) 18:58, November 26, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Train Village Dutch is etinct McCrooke 18:59, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :::::::AEC x2) And Dutch in Train Village? Both languages aren't used at all. If they are official languages, all (important) documents/pages concerning those places should theoretically get a translation... --Bucurestean 18:57, November 26, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::A little note on Oceana: it's mainly a cultural language. Of course there are hardly any people writing or speaking it in their daily lifes. --OuWTB 15:00, November 27, 2009 (UTC) Change Wouldn't this have to be chnaged to the year of 2003? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:54, January 8, 2011 (UTC) :I'm confused. Dimi will know for sure! 12:50, January 10, 2011 (UTC) ::No, Dimitri made this constitution: It was authored in 2007 by then-Crown Prince Dimitri of Lovia. It was approved by Congress by an absolute majority. I think we could say there was a pre-2007 constitution from 2003 until 2007 which needed a drastic change. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:01, January 10, 2011 (UTC) :::That made sense. But I don't think for four years there was a bad constitution. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:21, January 10, 2011 (UTC) ::::It could have been a 'transition constitution' which was finalized in 2007, after our transformation from anachronistic semi-absolute monarchy to ten-person democracy. 09:47, January 11, 2011 (UTC) :::::Indeed, that was what I was thinking :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:19, January 11, 2011 (UTC) ::::::According to Dimitri's plan, there have been laws, including a constitutional document, prior to 2007. The 2007 Congress, however, replaced it with the new Constitution, authored by the then-prince. -- 18:25, January 11, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I see. thanks. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:27, January 11, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::I confirm what Monty said. 10:16, January 12, 2011 (UTC) Plans for this page I ask a bit more patience from you concerning this page. I will be reforming it: * the history will be adapted to the "actual" history of our Congress, thus starting in 2003 etc. * the amendments part will be rewritten and adapted to the more recent amendments. Don't worry though: the Constitution text is up to date. The rest will follow soon. 09:44, February 1, 2011 (UTC) Article 2 or 5 Please don't fight over this. @TM: you can't remove your support once a law is accepted. @all: Why I prefer 5: yes, it is a voting right, but Article 2.4: "A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state. " This is not a right of a citizen... Therefore I propose a quick solution: in Article 2, add "The right to vote" and place this law in Article 5. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:16, March 18, 2013 (UTC) I'm not seeing 5. It manages legislative and executive power. Unrelated to voting rights imo. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 10:44, March 18, 2013 (UTC) Well, apart from a couple of lines, the whole proposal is unrelated to voting rights; most of the law is regulations which I don't believe belong in a Constitution. I'd suggest adding the lines 'Any Lovian citizen aged 18 or older may exercise their right to vote in an election.' and 'No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background.' to Article 2, possibly 'A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state.' to Article 5 as well, and then putting the rest into an 'Elections Regulation Act' for the Federal Law. --Semyon 12:30, March 18, 2013 (UTC) Agreed with Semyon's approach. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:47, March 18, 2013 (UTC) I don't see how this fits in Article 5 at all. This really doesn't have much to do with government powers...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:54, March 18, 2013 (UTC) I don't think that "A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state. " covers a right or duty of a citizen... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:14, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Agreed, but I prefer to keep it all in one piece. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 10:49, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Why the hell are we talking about 5? Isn't it suppose to be 8? Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:17, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Right, must've misread it somewhere. Should be 8, no doubt about it :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:23, March 19, 2013 (UTC) I said 8 alongggggggggggggggggggggggggggg time ago xD Can that please be settled? Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:37, March 19, 2013 (UTC) I don't think it fits in 8. It's not really pertaining to the elections themselves or the formation of the government. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:11, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Why don't we either a) split it up or b) make it a new article and maybe put some of the parts into other parts of the Constitution. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 00:12, March 20, 2013 (UTC) I don't want to be obstructionist but I really think regulations like 'Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot.' fit better in the Federal Law than the Constitution. --Semyon 11:54, March 25, 2013 (UTC) In heinsight I agree, I think I should seperate the two parts in a "Defense of voting Rights Act" or something. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:01, March 25, 2013 (UTC) I also agree. Besides, I voted pro on the condition that it would be in Article 2, so I can withdraw that now since it still technically hasn't past and agree to put it in the FedLaw. :3 —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:09, March 25, 2013 (UTC) Text of proposed 'Election Regulation Act' (provisional title) #All citizens above the age prescribed by the Constitution for federal or state elections may vote in those elections. ##The citizen must file registration for voting with the State Government to be allowed to vote. ###Registration must be filed at least two weeks before an election is held. #No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background. ##Infringement of voting rights is a felony, punishable by a minimum of a 10,000 dollar fine. ###The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime. ##The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by way of a Supreme Court order. ##Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot. ###Breaking this law once leads to a 1000 dollar fine. Breaking it more than once leads to a minimum prison sentence of three days and a 3000 dollar fine. ####The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime. I already made the change to the constitution, because it was easier to show what I meant by an edit than explaining. If noöne agrees, it can be reverted. --Semyon 13:26, March 25, 2013 (UTC) So why did you remove the state's votes thing? What did you change!? Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:32, March 25, 2013 (UTC) Two lines of the original text are still in the Constitution, this is the rest (with those two lines removed and slightly adapted.) --Semyon 13:34, March 25, 2013 (UTC) I don't get it, what did this really change, in all reality it can just stay as one, It was suppose to protect voting rights, if that includes things like infrigement on voting rights and fines, they should stay in it's entirety. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:38, March 25, 2013 (UTC) : Yeah, I thought we had already settled this. HORTON11: • 18:20, March 25, 2013 (UTC) ::It wasn't settled, it seems that TM just got tired of edit warring. Besides, even if there was consensus, I would still be raising this issue because it's serious. --Semyon 19:11, March 25, 2013 (UTC) Looks good. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:09, March 25, 2013 (UTC) :This is still in the Constitution, though. . . —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:10, March 25, 2013 (UTC) ::Yeah. I don't know if it would be too inflammatory to remove it, though. --Semyon 20:45, March 25, 2013 (UTC) Weekdays Is the bit about certain weekdays for suggestions purely in-character? MyOwnBadSelf (talk) 07:52, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :No, if the constitution was purely in character then there would be no point to it. KunarianTALK 13:46, February 15, 2017 (UTC) I assume so, and if it's not, I plan to ignore it :P —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:38, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :You can't. It's the constitution. If you don't follow it then you might as well not participate. KunarianTALK 13:46, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::I know how shit like this works though. It works for one week, and then it just falls into disrepair. Not everyone is able to be online everyday :o --OuWTB 13:58, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::Hmmm, yeah. I agree with the above. I understand that it is 'futureproofed' however I don't expect we'll end up like MHOC any time soon. I think this should be removed. Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 14:02, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::::Do you even understand what it means? Because I feel that people don't understand. It means that proposals are only to be brought on those days, not that discussion only occurs on those days. It's partially designed for people who can't be on everyday to ensure that we have a reasonable amount of things being proposed every day or week. ::::To be clear it works as such: You bring a proposal on Monday and it is discussed for up to a month before it has to be brought to a vote. Just like before except with a minimal addition of having proposals submitted in the week, leaving the weekend mainly for light debate on proposals submitted in the week and casual editing. ::::And Happy I wish you'd stop bringing up things that are completely unrelated in an attempt to agree with anyone who raises an issue. In the future if you don't understand how something works please just ask. KunarianTALK 14:37, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::::You patronizing us though? :'( --OuWTB 14:45, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::::This was very patronizing. Do you even understand what it means? I wish you'd stop bringing up things that are completely unrelated in an attempt to agree with anyone who raises in an issue. In the future if you don't understand how something works, please just ask :::::Yes. I do understand what it means. I fail to understand how the opposition/non-government members being only allowed to propose laws on a single weekday is invalid, when on most days there will likely be no laws proposed whatsoever. I would appreciate it if you didn't patronize me and instead addressed my concern. Thanks. Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 15:14, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Sorry if I am, I'm at work. You guys stressful sometimes. :'( KunarianTALK 14:52, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::::::Just like your work? :o --OuWTB 14:54, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::Tell me about it. :P You will have to be open to changing this though if it doesn't work out. I personally agree that the wiki doesn't have enough members to make it necessary. --Semyon 14:58, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::It'd all be fine if they paid me a couple hundred thousand more :'( Very open to change, just want things to be tried before they are thrown out the window. KunarianTALK 15:08, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::Yes, me too. Especially cuz we both so busy at work we hardly got time to Wikination during work hours :'( --OuWTB 15:14, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::Exactly :'( KunarianTALK 15:15, February 15, 2017 (UTC) Also @Happy: You have two days with 4 proposal slots. Besides if you think that most days aren't going to be used for proposals then what's wrong? By that logic it won't affect anything because there'll be plenty of slots free for you to propose things. KunarianTALK 15:18, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::Monday, Wednesday and Friday are reserved for motions from the Government. ::Tuesday is reserved for motions from non-Government Members of the Congress. ::Thursday is reserved for motions from Lovian citizens. ::This suggests non-Government Members of the Congress may only propose a motion on Tuesday. I am concerned about people having real life commitments and not being able to propose a motion on Tuesday. Why limit it to a single day when there aren't going to be many proposals anyway? Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 15:24, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::Pretty sure they can post on Monday, but we just ignore it until Tuesday :o --OuWTB 15:28, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::::If so, why wait until Tuesday since there's going to be very few proposals anyway? Why not have all week open to all? What if the proposer could answer questions on Monday but is busy on Tuesday? This just slows down things. ::::And the above does not explain how we have two days with 4 proposal slots. Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 15:33, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::::If things were to become crammed then Tuesdays would be solely reserved for two non-government MotC motions. But as you say that's unlikely. And I find it very unlikely that you won't be able to tell the speaker you have a proposal you want to bring before congress and provide a brief description as to what it is so that they can make a post on your behalf. Besides when things are brought to Congress it is mostly a copy-paste into the First Chamber, hardly something that takes eons. :::::And Oos is right. You can take that approach too. Alternatively if you are so concerned then we can change it to simply be 6 Government motions a week, 2 non-Gov a week and 2 citizen props a week. :::::And if you're in opposition you have access to the opposition slots and the Lovian citizen slots. 4 slots a week. KunarianTALK 15:51, February 15, 2017 (UTC) As you say it's unlikely things will become crammed on Tuesdays, so why do we need certain days to start discussion whatsoever? Why not give people the freedom to start discussing on any day they want rather then have to wait for Tuesday which only extends things? You might be able to provide a brief description on the previous day, yes. But why start discussing on a certain day when the proposer who could answer questions and queries might have real life commitments on that day and even the days after, and would be unable to answer them prolonging the process. Again, what if someone thinks up an idea but has to wait up to a week to propose it even though we are discussing nothing else, because as you say it's unlikely they'll be crammed. You can't include Lovian citizens as slots for the oppositions. There is no guarantee that the opposition will have access to any of the slots of the Lovian citizens. The Government could intentionally use up the two citizen slots limiting the opposition to just 2 slots, only on Tuesday. Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 16:23, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :Here's a proposal that makes things simpler and keeps the motion management system there: # Motions are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber by the proposer in conjunction with the Speaker. ## Each week a set amount of motions may be brought before Congress to ensure the work of Congress can be properly debated and managed. The Speaker is responsible for enforcing these limits and ensuring that Ministers, non-Ministerial Members of the Congress and Lovian citizens do not use up the slots not reserved for them. ### Motions from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are limited to four a week. ### Motions from non-Ministerial Members of the Congress are limited to four a week. ### Motions from Lovian Citizens are limited to two a week. ### The Speaker must remove proposals that violate these limits. ### No motions may be proposed on a Saturday or Sunday. Does this serve you better? KunarianTALK 16:18, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :I'll make a similar change for the States. KunarianTALK 16:20, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :This indeed serves the Lovian people better. ;) Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 16:31, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :Except I still don't understand why there should be no proposals on Saturday or Sunday considering that's when people are most active and the proposer can respond to points, but ok. Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 16:32, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::I'll make the change. And it's good to keep the weekends free from proposals because most people will end up addressing all the proposals put up in the week. And additionally it ensures a break from activity in Congress that should allow people to do things other than politics if they want. It ensures it's a gentle tick-over. KunarianTALK 16:38, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::Ok, well that was a pretty fiery discussion (for better or worse) :o Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 16:40, February 15, 2017 (UTC) IN THE FIRES OF DEBATE, GREAT DEMOCRACIES ARE FORGED KunarianTALK 16:44, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :Except in West Yorkshire... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll0dfWe-63w Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 16:46, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::That video was a delight to watch. Thank you. --Semyon 18:19, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::Yeah, that one's a classic. Bet you're glad you avoided West Yorkshire (or at least Bradford) :P Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 20:47, February 15, 2017 (UTC) Okay, banning motions on Saturday and Sunday is a bad idea. That's when almost all of us can be online the most. Just drop all day of the week restrictions or keep them IC only. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:39, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :I did make that point; see Kun's response above if you haven't. Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 17:42, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::I'll drop it if you want but there'll be people who complain at some point I can promise. KunarianTALK 20:34, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::It was only a suggestion. I feel the most important thing was removing the slots for the individual days and you've done that. I'm not sure altering everything too drastically is good either, but ok. Happy65 (Talk) ( ) ::::Yes, I don't understand the weekday stuff either. It could work in character, but definitely not out of it. MyOwnBadSelf (talk) 21:49, February 15, 2017 (UTC) Ok, I see it. Bad reason. Literally nothing stops people from reading earlier proposals if more are posted on the weekend. I will be ignoring this by proposing stuff on weekends and edit war anyone who tries to revert me, so I suggest you remove it. :P —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:58, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::It has already been removed. Happy65 (Talk) ( ) 21:59, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :It was already changed when you posted this you congressional terrorist. KunarianTALK 22:14, February 15, 2017 (UTC) ::Ah, good. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:19, February 15, 2017 (UTC)